Last night was the first candidates debate in the Beausejour riding. It took place at the Brunton auditorium on the campus here at Mount Allison University. The place was filled for the most part and pretty evenly split between students and regular residents of Sackville.
The candidates of the four parties contesting this riding were all there. Representing the Liberals was incumbent Dominic Leblance, Omer Leger for the Conservatives, Mike Milligan for the Green Party and my fellow classmate Chris Durrant for the NDP. Each candidate was given the floor for ten minutes and this was then followed by a question and answer period with questions coming from the audience.
Omer Leger greatly emphasized his level of experience in New Brunswick provincial politics. He played mostly on the strength of leadership of Stephen Harper but argued vigorously that it was time that Beausejour was represented by someone other than the Liberal party. He proposed that he would put in "aggressive effort to create opportunities for young people and young professionals" to stop the hemhorraging of New Brunswick's young workforce to Canada's West.
Dominic Leblanc's ten minute introduction largely parroted the views of Liberal leader Stephane Dion, further strengthening my belief that Mr. Leblanc is merely a mouthpiece for Dion and does not really represent his riding. He focused on the two issues of the national campaign; economy and the environment. The only thing he said that I believe truely would benefit this area was the re-investment in post-secondary education by way of the Millenium Bursury Foundation. As a past recipient of a Millenium Bursury, this spoke to me because of the great help my bursury had on relieving my student debt.
Mike Milligan didn't really impress me in his speech. He conveyed his past experiences, not in politics but in life and while he showed considerable insight it was not enought to instill the kind of confidence that one should have in their elected representative. In terms of political views, he stuck to the generic Green Party dialogue.
As for Chris Durrant, I've known him for a while now, being in more than a few classes with him and through my extensive involvement in politics on campus. I knew he would be entertaining and intelligent but the force at which he presented himself with onstage caught me by surprise. Chris easily had the best opening speech of all the candidates, utilizing the French language more than the others, probably in preparation for the upcoming debates in the more heavily francophone areas of this riding. I believe he connected with many of the youth in the crowd on what he and the NDP saw as Canada's future, both home and abroad, as well as his willingness to fight for families augmented by a personal experience that all could identify with.
At this point I could conclude that the majority of the crowd were either won over by Chris' presence or were supporters of him from the beginning. Either way, it was clearly evident that the majority of the crowd were behind Chris.
The question and answer period was politically risky for the candidates as the floor was open to any and everyone in the crowd. I had a pretty good idea of what questions would be asked of the candidates and the people in the audience did not disappoint. We heard questions about sustainability, nuclear power/waster, Omar Khadr, Insite as well as justice and childcare. Mr. Leblanc had mentioned in his opening statement that he was looking forward to some questions on Canada's role in the world. I was looking forward to this subject but the only topic that was really breached was Canada's foreign aid. I had a couple tough questions for the candidates in theis area but unfortunately the debate had a curfew of 9:30pm so I missed out. But this, like I have written about in the past, is a perfect example of how this election is narrow sighted, concerning mainly subjects of domestic importance.
As for how each candidate did, this may be debatable but the way I see it, Chris showed intelligence and presence that far exceeded his experience. I truely think that like the opening statements, he excelled and was at the top. Joining him up there was Dominic, who used his tremendous amount of experience to provide well articulated and polished answers. As for Mr. Milligan, the question period exposed even more his lack of experience and knowledge in federal politics. Unfortunately, the worst performance of the day was by Omer Leger who appeared to be unprepared, dodging many questions that are of great interest in this election.
I will be following this election closely as it is the riding that I will be voting in and I try to give updates as more events happen.
- blenCOWe
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Great Article on the Election and Foreign Policy
This article came across my RSS feed today. It comes from a group called Canada's World. They're interested in Canada's role in the world and how we come to achieve this. It argues the point that I have previously made that the current election is ignoring the importance of foreign policy to Canada's direction in the next couple years. Check it out, it's intelligent and it offers links to more sources on the topic.
Canada's World
- blenCOWe
Canada's World
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Mr. Edwards on the Largest Stage
Jeff Davis reports today that the Canadian government will be sending the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonard Edwards, as the Canadian official who will be attending the opening of the United Nations General Assembly next week.
The decision to send Mr. Edwards has drawn some ire from Canadian foreign policy experts because of his low level of seniority. While most states usually send either their head of state/ambassador or their foreign affairs minister, Canada will only be sending a civil servant – a high ranking one at that but still a civil servant and not an official of the government.
Lloyd Axworthy says he can’t understand why there won’t be at least a senior minister at the important diplomatic event. That surprises me because I can fully see why Mr. Harper or Mr. Emerson will not be able to attend.
Turn on the television for five minutes and you will probably see an advertisement from one of the major political parties or a news story covering the election. This means Canada must be going through a federal election! This is quite an important time in Canadian politics and the direction our country moves in, but that’s not the whole story: Canada doesn’t really have a government right now!
The way I understand it, when the Prime Minister goes to the Governor General to ask him or her to dissolve parliament and the GG agrees there technically is no longer a government until after the election results are in. We do not have a system like the United States where the election occurs three months before the new president takes office. With this in mind, it would be inappropriate to send Mr. Harper or Mr. Emerson to speak to the UN because they do not actually hold office right now. They are the incumbents (well not Emerson because he is not running again) but they are not the actual Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister at the time. Because of this, Canada’s next highest foreign affairs official would then have to be Mr. Edwards because the civil service is separate from the political leaders and is not affected by the election. Therefore, by sending Mr. Edwards to the UN, Canada is actually sending its highest CURRENT foreign affairs official.
I will admit that this is unfortunate timing as there are extremely important issues to discuss at the UN, for example the Security Council elections and the UN mission in Afghanistan. It would be better if Canada could send its Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister to the meetings but this truly isn’t possible. I believe that the chosen path is the most responsible because any elected official that would go to the meetings would not be able to say for certain that they will be in the next parliament let alone the governing party. By sending Mr. Edwards, other countries can have the assurance that Mr. Edwards will be around Oct. 15 to pass on their messages.
Think about it; what is worse for Canada’s international image: to send an official that is technically low ranking in seniority or to send someone who can make all kinds of promises but may not even be in parliament three weeks from now?
I think the question answers itself…
- blenCOWe
The decision to send Mr. Edwards has drawn some ire from Canadian foreign policy experts because of his low level of seniority. While most states usually send either their head of state/ambassador or their foreign affairs minister, Canada will only be sending a civil servant – a high ranking one at that but still a civil servant and not an official of the government.
Lloyd Axworthy says he can’t understand why there won’t be at least a senior minister at the important diplomatic event. That surprises me because I can fully see why Mr. Harper or Mr. Emerson will not be able to attend.
Turn on the television for five minutes and you will probably see an advertisement from one of the major political parties or a news story covering the election. This means Canada must be going through a federal election! This is quite an important time in Canadian politics and the direction our country moves in, but that’s not the whole story: Canada doesn’t really have a government right now!
The way I understand it, when the Prime Minister goes to the Governor General to ask him or her to dissolve parliament and the GG agrees there technically is no longer a government until after the election results are in. We do not have a system like the United States where the election occurs three months before the new president takes office. With this in mind, it would be inappropriate to send Mr. Harper or Mr. Emerson to speak to the UN because they do not actually hold office right now. They are the incumbents (well not Emerson because he is not running again) but they are not the actual Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister at the time. Because of this, Canada’s next highest foreign affairs official would then have to be Mr. Edwards because the civil service is separate from the political leaders and is not affected by the election. Therefore, by sending Mr. Edwards to the UN, Canada is actually sending its highest CURRENT foreign affairs official.
I will admit that this is unfortunate timing as there are extremely important issues to discuss at the UN, for example the Security Council elections and the UN mission in Afghanistan. It would be better if Canada could send its Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister to the meetings but this truly isn’t possible. I believe that the chosen path is the most responsible because any elected official that would go to the meetings would not be able to say for certain that they will be in the next parliament let alone the governing party. By sending Mr. Edwards, other countries can have the assurance that Mr. Edwards will be around Oct. 15 to pass on their messages.
Think about it; what is worse for Canada’s international image: to send an official that is technically low ranking in seniority or to send someone who can make all kinds of promises but may not even be in parliament three weeks from now?
I think the question answers itself…
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sanctions Falling on Deaf Ears
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York speaking to the United Nations this week. He is spouting off his usual rhetoric about the great powers "bullying" Iran over its nuclear program and so on.
In response to recent moves/remarks by Ahmadinejad and Iran, the United States and its allies are pushing for the Security Council to pass sanctions on the renegade state. I am supremely confident that these sanctions will not have any effect. Why am I so sure? Because the previous THREE sets of sanctions haven't had any effect to curb the rebellious attitude of Iran.
In the end, another set of sanctions will just be more empty talk between the two rivals.
- blenCOWe
In response to recent moves/remarks by Ahmadinejad and Iran, the United States and its allies are pushing for the Security Council to pass sanctions on the renegade state. I am supremely confident that these sanctions will not have any effect. Why am I so sure? Because the previous THREE sets of sanctions haven't had any effect to curb the rebellious attitude of Iran.
In the end, another set of sanctions will just be more empty talk between the two rivals.
- blenCOWe
Some Good News for the Afghan Mission
In the debates between John McCain and Barack Obama in the lead up to this November's presidential election we have heard how the United States must re-commit to the mission in Afghanistan. Typically, this has involved a surge of US troops that is supposed to help combat the ongoing insurgency, especially in the troublesome Kandahar region.
I have commented in the past how I believe that the last thing the Afghan mission needs is more US troops involved. The tactics and mentality of the United States is hampering the good work that the other contingents' troops are doing. Dropping bombs on innocent Afghan people and the other slopping tactics employed by the US forces create enemies from those people who lose family members and loved ones from these tactics. Battling the insurgency requires, to use the popular phrase, winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The US and their tactics are killing the people whose minds we're trying to win over and/or turning them against the work that NATO forces are trying to do.
With this in mind, I was happy to see that the US Department of Defense has determined that the desired three additional brigade combat teams will not be deployed any time soon. Apparently the United States does not have the manpower to fulfill this further commitment without changing soldiers' deployment or lengths of tours.
Finally some good news for the Afghan mission!
Of late, the Afghan mission has suffered in its support from recent announcements from the Canadian government that their forces will be withdrawn from the mission in 2011. Then there is the current debate going on in the French government on the future of their deployed troops.
Despite this trouble in support for the mission, I truely believe that the more that the United States can be limited in its role and influence in the Afghan mission, the greater the chance for success. Therefore, this revelation that the US will not be sending the proposed 3 brigades is a good thing.
- blenCOWe
I have commented in the past how I believe that the last thing the Afghan mission needs is more US troops involved. The tactics and mentality of the United States is hampering the good work that the other contingents' troops are doing. Dropping bombs on innocent Afghan people and the other slopping tactics employed by the US forces create enemies from those people who lose family members and loved ones from these tactics. Battling the insurgency requires, to use the popular phrase, winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The US and their tactics are killing the people whose minds we're trying to win over and/or turning them against the work that NATO forces are trying to do.
With this in mind, I was happy to see that the US Department of Defense has determined that the desired three additional brigade combat teams will not be deployed any time soon. Apparently the United States does not have the manpower to fulfill this further commitment without changing soldiers' deployment or lengths of tours.
Finally some good news for the Afghan mission!
Of late, the Afghan mission has suffered in its support from recent announcements from the Canadian government that their forces will be withdrawn from the mission in 2011. Then there is the current debate going on in the French government on the future of their deployed troops.
Despite this trouble in support for the mission, I truely believe that the more that the United States can be limited in its role and influence in the Afghan mission, the greater the chance for success. Therefore, this revelation that the US will not be sending the proposed 3 brigades is a good thing.
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Electoral Blinders
I read an article in the Globe and Mail today that really got me thinking. For those, like me, who consider ourselves internationalists the current Canadian federal election is shaping up to be quite a bore. It seems that none of the parties are truly concerned about Canada's place and/or role in the World. This causes me great concern when I consider both our national history and our current realities.
In the past, Canada has shouted from the highest mounts about its involvement and achievements in international affairs. From its surprising military achievements in the World Wars to its involvement with the creation of the United Nations or Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize winning work in the Suez Crisis to the decades of involvement by the Canadian Forces in UN peacekeeping missions. Now we've all heard this before; it has been repeatedly beaten into our brains about Canada and its peacekeeping and such but there are other areas of involvement that are beginning to dwindle. One prime example of this is with the Security Council elections. Canada has been very successful, for a middle power, at "punching above its weight" in many areas of international affairs. One way it has done this has been to place itself in positions that give it importance that its strength may not bestow. A seat on the Security Council has traditionally been one of those positions. Recognizing the importance and power that the Security Council has in world affairs, Canada has traditionally launched strong campaigns to win one of these seats of prestige when its name came around in the election cycle.
Unfortunately, of late, Canada's history of presence and involvement in international affairs has be relegated to an afterthought. Beginning with the previous Liberal regime and continuing through the most recent parliament, Canada's involvement has dwindled. Our nation has gone from one of the leading contributors to UN peacekeeping missions to contributing less than 100 people worldwide. Now I am not narrow minded, I realize that Canada is deeply involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan and with our limited military strength, in both supplies and manpower, it is necessary to pick and choose our battles. I wish Canada could contribute more but we just do not have the ability to do so currently.
I have been a big supporter of viewing Canada's involvement in Afghanistan not as a military mission but as a development/peacebuilding mission that requires the use of force because of the difficult situation the aid workers are in. Without the presence of our military and the rest of the NATO forces, the aid workers would be greatly at risk from those radicals who are intent on maintaining the stranglehold on the Afghan people. This type of work is necessary as less and less we see peacekeeping as being relevant and more and more we find that peacebuilding is required. The mission in Afghanistan is a peacebuilding mission and should be recognized as not a solely military endeavour.
As for the Security Council, the recent remarks released about how the Conservative government was not going to contest for the open seat unless it was sure it could win straight up pissed me off. This type of politics sends the message that Canada is afraid and unwilling to participate in the knitty gritty aspects of world politics. Canada should have been a lock to win this seat but its recent trend of pissing people off and not using its resources have created the situation of doubt we now are faced with. It strikes me that our recent officials have been unwilling to "play the game" so to say when it comes to these international elections. These seats confer great influence and power but one must sacrifice to get them. It may be necessary to give out some favourable votes in return for support come election time. However, Canada has largely just pissed off everyone except the US, Israel and a few key allies. In the past Canada would have easily had the support it would need to get a Security Council seat but now Canadian officials don't want to incur the necessary upfront costs that later benefit our nation's stature.
Then there was the recent revelation by Stephen Harper that Canada will be out of Afghanistan in 2011. I consider this a complete flip flop on the part of Mr. Harper. Last winter/spring, when the whole subject of renewal was the topic de jour, the Conservative government was against putting down a firm withdrawal date for both military and politically strategic reasons. This made sense; it is stupid to tell an enemy that you are only willing to fight until a certain date for they will just bide their time until that day and then once you leave they essentially win.
This just exacerbates what I believe to have been a debacle in the handling of the quest for support from NATO in return for Canada staying in Kandahar. The goal was to push for greater commitments of support from its fellow NATO members (of which I think France and Germany are showing how truely weak they are and how far they have fallen as world powers) but Canada could not gain solid support and ended up settling for a scenario (US troops are freed up to move to Kandahar) that will probably make things worse. Canada's troops are doing a good job in the conflict that everyone else is too afraid to engage in there but they are not getting the political support they need because of a lack of will from their political representatives.
Now I'm not saying that the opposition leaders are better; neither Layton nor Dion strike me as being people capable of leading Canada back to its strong international stature of the past. Both men have called for a complete pullout of Afghanistan which would leave Canada with just its paltry current commitments to UN peacekeeping missions. Then they want Canada to take part in global warming remedies that would hurt our nation's economy and stresses the inequalities amongst developed and underdeveloped states.
In the end, Canada's political leaders appear to be concerned with their electoral survival first and foremost and do not have a greater image for Canada and its place in the world. Stephen Harper did for a while but his recent direction has made me begin to wonder. I believe it's a sad day when Canada's place in the world is relegated to an afterthought. Canada cannot continue to prosper in this increasingly globalized world without a strong and coherent plan for its place in the world.
I might be mistaken, but I believe this kind of plan is supposed to be called "foreign policy." It's one of those little topics that are supposed to be discussed in elections!
- blenCOWe
In the past, Canada has shouted from the highest mounts about its involvement and achievements in international affairs. From its surprising military achievements in the World Wars to its involvement with the creation of the United Nations or Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize winning work in the Suez Crisis to the decades of involvement by the Canadian Forces in UN peacekeeping missions. Now we've all heard this before; it has been repeatedly beaten into our brains about Canada and its peacekeeping and such but there are other areas of involvement that are beginning to dwindle. One prime example of this is with the Security Council elections. Canada has been very successful, for a middle power, at "punching above its weight" in many areas of international affairs. One way it has done this has been to place itself in positions that give it importance that its strength may not bestow. A seat on the Security Council has traditionally been one of those positions. Recognizing the importance and power that the Security Council has in world affairs, Canada has traditionally launched strong campaigns to win one of these seats of prestige when its name came around in the election cycle.
Unfortunately, of late, Canada's history of presence and involvement in international affairs has be relegated to an afterthought. Beginning with the previous Liberal regime and continuing through the most recent parliament, Canada's involvement has dwindled. Our nation has gone from one of the leading contributors to UN peacekeeping missions to contributing less than 100 people worldwide. Now I am not narrow minded, I realize that Canada is deeply involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan and with our limited military strength, in both supplies and manpower, it is necessary to pick and choose our battles. I wish Canada could contribute more but we just do not have the ability to do so currently.
I have been a big supporter of viewing Canada's involvement in Afghanistan not as a military mission but as a development/peacebuilding mission that requires the use of force because of the difficult situation the aid workers are in. Without the presence of our military and the rest of the NATO forces, the aid workers would be greatly at risk from those radicals who are intent on maintaining the stranglehold on the Afghan people. This type of work is necessary as less and less we see peacekeeping as being relevant and more and more we find that peacebuilding is required. The mission in Afghanistan is a peacebuilding mission and should be recognized as not a solely military endeavour.
As for the Security Council, the recent remarks released about how the Conservative government was not going to contest for the open seat unless it was sure it could win straight up pissed me off. This type of politics sends the message that Canada is afraid and unwilling to participate in the knitty gritty aspects of world politics. Canada should have been a lock to win this seat but its recent trend of pissing people off and not using its resources have created the situation of doubt we now are faced with. It strikes me that our recent officials have been unwilling to "play the game" so to say when it comes to these international elections. These seats confer great influence and power but one must sacrifice to get them. It may be necessary to give out some favourable votes in return for support come election time. However, Canada has largely just pissed off everyone except the US, Israel and a few key allies. In the past Canada would have easily had the support it would need to get a Security Council seat but now Canadian officials don't want to incur the necessary upfront costs that later benefit our nation's stature.
Then there was the recent revelation by Stephen Harper that Canada will be out of Afghanistan in 2011. I consider this a complete flip flop on the part of Mr. Harper. Last winter/spring, when the whole subject of renewal was the topic de jour, the Conservative government was against putting down a firm withdrawal date for both military and politically strategic reasons. This made sense; it is stupid to tell an enemy that you are only willing to fight until a certain date for they will just bide their time until that day and then once you leave they essentially win.
This just exacerbates what I believe to have been a debacle in the handling of the quest for support from NATO in return for Canada staying in Kandahar. The goal was to push for greater commitments of support from its fellow NATO members (of which I think France and Germany are showing how truely weak they are and how far they have fallen as world powers) but Canada could not gain solid support and ended up settling for a scenario (US troops are freed up to move to Kandahar) that will probably make things worse. Canada's troops are doing a good job in the conflict that everyone else is too afraid to engage in there but they are not getting the political support they need because of a lack of will from their political representatives.
Now I'm not saying that the opposition leaders are better; neither Layton nor Dion strike me as being people capable of leading Canada back to its strong international stature of the past. Both men have called for a complete pullout of Afghanistan which would leave Canada with just its paltry current commitments to UN peacekeeping missions. Then they want Canada to take part in global warming remedies that would hurt our nation's economy and stresses the inequalities amongst developed and underdeveloped states.
In the end, Canada's political leaders appear to be concerned with their electoral survival first and foremost and do not have a greater image for Canada and its place in the world. Stephen Harper did for a while but his recent direction has made me begin to wonder. I believe it's a sad day when Canada's place in the world is relegated to an afterthought. Canada cannot continue to prosper in this increasingly globalized world without a strong and coherent plan for its place in the world.
I might be mistaken, but I believe this kind of plan is supposed to be called "foreign policy." It's one of those little topics that are supposed to be discussed in elections!
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Ambition Without Reality for the New UN Assembly President
The General Assembly of the United Nations has just announced its new president. Former Nicaraguan foreign minister Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann has been selected after running unopposed by anyone from the Latin American states of whose turn it was to hold the position. Upon the announcement of his selection Mr. Brockmann revealed his own plans to make the United Nations a more democratic institution. That's a pretty high and mighty position considering the fact that he didn't really have to compete agains anyone to gain his elected position!
Anyway...
The main component to Brockmann's plans for democratization is to change the amount of power the Security Council holds in international politics. Also targeted in his plans for democratization are the IMF, World Bank and the UN bureaucracy.
I applaud Mr. Brockmann for coming out and voicing his strong opinions on the problems with the United Nations system but what he is actually saying makes me think that he does not actually understand his position is. First of all, as president of the General Assembly, Mr. Brockmann cannot change the IMF and World Bank (which are not even UN bodies) and is unlikely to be able to influence much amongst the secretariat of the United Nations (which is an entirely separate body in the UN system). Secondly, to alter the powers of the Security Council (e.g. remove/reorganize the vetoes), one would have to change the UN charter. To do this would entail gaining the support of two-thirds of the members of the UN including the five veto-wielding powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United States). Now considering that the great powers cannot come to a consensus on pressing issues like Darfur and Zimbabwe, how does Brockmann expect them to agree on this? Furthermore, the vetoes themselves hold a certain level of distinction for their possessors. They confer the ability to directly influence the United Nations both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. The five Great Powers will not agree to relinquishing their vetoes because it would weaken their position in international politics. For example, the vetoes held by Great Britain and France represent their level of power and influence in the immediate post-1945 period, not their current level of influence, holding on to their vetoes are paramount to these declining powers. In the past, there have been calls for reform to the Security Council, many of which included increasing the number of veto votes to include the current power states like China, Brazil, India, etc. The great powers would not agree to this because it would diminish their stature in the system, so to think that they would agree to completely letting go of their special status is extremely naive.
Like I said, I applaud President Brockmann for his ambition but I believe he seriously needs to temper this ambition with a heavy dose of reality.
- blenCOWe
Anyway...
The main component to Brockmann's plans for democratization is to change the amount of power the Security Council holds in international politics. Also targeted in his plans for democratization are the IMF, World Bank and the UN bureaucracy.
I applaud Mr. Brockmann for coming out and voicing his strong opinions on the problems with the United Nations system but what he is actually saying makes me think that he does not actually understand his position is. First of all, as president of the General Assembly, Mr. Brockmann cannot change the IMF and World Bank (which are not even UN bodies) and is unlikely to be able to influence much amongst the secretariat of the United Nations (which is an entirely separate body in the UN system). Secondly, to alter the powers of the Security Council (e.g. remove/reorganize the vetoes), one would have to change the UN charter. To do this would entail gaining the support of two-thirds of the members of the UN including the five veto-wielding powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United States). Now considering that the great powers cannot come to a consensus on pressing issues like Darfur and Zimbabwe, how does Brockmann expect them to agree on this? Furthermore, the vetoes themselves hold a certain level of distinction for their possessors. They confer the ability to directly influence the United Nations both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. The five Great Powers will not agree to relinquishing their vetoes because it would weaken their position in international politics. For example, the vetoes held by Great Britain and France represent their level of power and influence in the immediate post-1945 period, not their current level of influence, holding on to their vetoes are paramount to these declining powers. In the past, there have been calls for reform to the Security Council, many of which included increasing the number of veto votes to include the current power states like China, Brazil, India, etc. The great powers would not agree to this because it would diminish their stature in the system, so to think that they would agree to completely letting go of their special status is extremely naive.
Like I said, I applaud President Brockmann for his ambition but I believe he seriously needs to temper this ambition with a heavy dose of reality.
- blenCOWe
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Election Musings
Here are a few things that have been going through my mind while watching coverage of the Canadian Federal Election:
Women
I applaud Stephane Dion for his initiative to nominate 106 female candidates in this election. I agree with the fact that there are not many women in Canadian politics but that is pretty much the only thing that we agree upon. Women are just over 51% of the population but held only 58 seats (at my last count) in the 304 seat House of Commons (which is less that one fifth of the seats). Clearly these percentages do not match up... but should they? Canada's parliamentary system follows the "First Past the Post System." This system has many advantages and disadvantages which are largely influenced by whether or not one benefits or suffers from this system. Despite the many calls for electoral reform, Canada, currently, does not employ any facet of proportional representation in its voting practices. This probably has some influence in determining how many women are elected each election. But then again, maybe not.
Unlike the recent surges in political activity that the US Presidential election has seen, female politicians in Canada have not been able to attract a near level of response. Canada has had its share of female political leaders from Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough to current Green Party leader Elizabeth May. None of these leaders though have been able to rouse the same level of support and activity that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Pallin have. It is probably stands to reason that a majority of voters in Canada do not focus on gender when choosing who to vote for. This educated guess leads me to make another hopefully educated ;) assumption in that Canadian voters tend to vote for who is most qualified and represents their interests the best. This is to say that if a female candidate is well qualified and truely connects with the interests of their electorate then she is likely to garner a fair amount of support. On the other hand, campaigning on the platform of being a woman and gender representation is not likely to garner as much support. As a voting citizen of Canada, I would like to think that we are voting for the most qualified candidate in elections and not based on factors of proportional representation.
Note: If I offend anyone with these views I am sorry but these thoughts are based on my recent years of political study and not because I believe women lack the capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the position or that women belong in the private sphere as opposed to public office.
The Carbon Tax
While watching one of Liberal leader Stephane Dion's recent speeches on CPAC, the thought hit me: "Okay so if we decide to accept your Carbon Tax plan, how would we know that it is working?" The Carbon Tax that Dion is proposing has no legitimate means of evaluation to determine if it is effective in its endeavour or even doing what it says it will. Examining Greenhouse emissions would not be the proper the indicator of this as the two things are not directly connected. Greenhouse Gases are likely to lessen in the next few years with the recent attention that global warming has received. Clean technology is growing in capabilities and becoming less expensive to own which increases the public's ability to access it and incorporate it into their lives. This will have a positive effect on decreasing GHG's. Also, the astronomical oil prices of late are forcing people to conserve their dependence on carbon based fuels and towards more environmentally friendly and cheaper means so that they do not go broke paying for the petroleum-based products we have grown to use so readily. These shifts in consumption will lower GHG's independently of the Carbon Tax, so any success by the tax would be undetectable.
Introducing a policy so invasive and costly without a reliable means of monitoring its efficacy is wreckless and irresponsible. This renegade tax would be used to fund a Liberal governments excessive spending and would unjustly add to the increasing cost of living for Canadians. When the next election would be called the Liberals would likely yell from mountain top so that everyone could hear how their Carbon Tax was so effective in reducing Green House Gases when their decline would largely be a separate phenomenon. In the end, Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party are using the environment as a crutch to raise taxes and increase their ability to spend.
One final thought: I LOVE NOT HAVING CLASS ON TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS!!!!!!
- blenCOWe
Women
I applaud Stephane Dion for his initiative to nominate 106 female candidates in this election. I agree with the fact that there are not many women in Canadian politics but that is pretty much the only thing that we agree upon. Women are just over 51% of the population but held only 58 seats (at my last count) in the 304 seat House of Commons (which is less that one fifth of the seats). Clearly these percentages do not match up... but should they? Canada's parliamentary system follows the "First Past the Post System." This system has many advantages and disadvantages which are largely influenced by whether or not one benefits or suffers from this system. Despite the many calls for electoral reform, Canada, currently, does not employ any facet of proportional representation in its voting practices. This probably has some influence in determining how many women are elected each election. But then again, maybe not.
Unlike the recent surges in political activity that the US Presidential election has seen, female politicians in Canada have not been able to attract a near level of response. Canada has had its share of female political leaders from Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough to current Green Party leader Elizabeth May. None of these leaders though have been able to rouse the same level of support and activity that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Pallin have. It is probably stands to reason that a majority of voters in Canada do not focus on gender when choosing who to vote for. This educated guess leads me to make another hopefully educated ;) assumption in that Canadian voters tend to vote for who is most qualified and represents their interests the best. This is to say that if a female candidate is well qualified and truely connects with the interests of their electorate then she is likely to garner a fair amount of support. On the other hand, campaigning on the platform of being a woman and gender representation is not likely to garner as much support. As a voting citizen of Canada, I would like to think that we are voting for the most qualified candidate in elections and not based on factors of proportional representation.
Note: If I offend anyone with these views I am sorry but these thoughts are based on my recent years of political study and not because I believe women lack the capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the position or that women belong in the private sphere as opposed to public office.
The Carbon Tax
While watching one of Liberal leader Stephane Dion's recent speeches on CPAC, the thought hit me: "Okay so if we decide to accept your Carbon Tax plan, how would we know that it is working?" The Carbon Tax that Dion is proposing has no legitimate means of evaluation to determine if it is effective in its endeavour or even doing what it says it will. Examining Greenhouse emissions would not be the proper the indicator of this as the two things are not directly connected. Greenhouse Gases are likely to lessen in the next few years with the recent attention that global warming has received. Clean technology is growing in capabilities and becoming less expensive to own which increases the public's ability to access it and incorporate it into their lives. This will have a positive effect on decreasing GHG's. Also, the astronomical oil prices of late are forcing people to conserve their dependence on carbon based fuels and towards more environmentally friendly and cheaper means so that they do not go broke paying for the petroleum-based products we have grown to use so readily. These shifts in consumption will lower GHG's independently of the Carbon Tax, so any success by the tax would be undetectable.
Introducing a policy so invasive and costly without a reliable means of monitoring its efficacy is wreckless and irresponsible. This renegade tax would be used to fund a Liberal governments excessive spending and would unjustly add to the increasing cost of living for Canadians. When the next election would be called the Liberals would likely yell from mountain top so that everyone could hear how their Carbon Tax was so effective in reducing Green House Gases when their decline would largely be a separate phenomenon. In the end, Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party are using the environment as a crutch to raise taxes and increase their ability to spend.
One final thought: I LOVE NOT HAVING CLASS ON TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS!!!!!!
- blenCOWe
Sunday, September 7, 2008
I'm Baaaaaaack!!!!
After a long absence from blogging, I am back. Football camp is over and I am back to school and have more time on my hands. This is a great thing because I am excited for the election that finally became official today.
Watching the leaders on television today was interesting. Some thoughts I had this morning while watching them were:
- Dion is still uninspiring
- Layton is pushing harder than ever to become the choice of the left wing
- Duceppe is ... well... he's just there
- May speaks well but strikes me as any other Green Party candidate: someone who is entertaining but will not be taken seriously (as an option) by the majority of voters
- Harper seems strong and well prepared for this election
I can't wait to see how this election plays out. I expect a lot of slander from the opposition parties and a harsh dose of reality, provided by the Conservatives, as to how successful the other leaders would be as Prime Ministers.
In my mind, there is no doubt the Conservatives will become the government again. The question in my mind is whether or not a majority will be reached.
Oooooh the election fever is growing
- blenCOWe
Watching the leaders on television today was interesting. Some thoughts I had this morning while watching them were:
- Dion is still uninspiring
- Layton is pushing harder than ever to become the choice of the left wing
- Duceppe is ... well... he's just there
- May speaks well but strikes me as any other Green Party candidate: someone who is entertaining but will not be taken seriously (as an option) by the majority of voters
- Harper seems strong and well prepared for this election
I can't wait to see how this election plays out. I expect a lot of slander from the opposition parties and a harsh dose of reality, provided by the Conservatives, as to how successful the other leaders would be as Prime Ministers.
In my mind, there is no doubt the Conservatives will become the government again. The question in my mind is whether or not a majority will be reached.
Oooooh the election fever is growing
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
